News
South Carolina Protects Use of Emotional Support Animals
September 28, 2026
Introduction
Some landlords or property managers might try to forbid, or charge you fees for having, Emotional Support Animals (ESAs) in your home. This article explains how a recent internal memorandum from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has narrowed federal administrative protection for ESAs. It also shows how your right to ESAs as reasonable accommodations remains protected and unchanged under South Carolina law.
Reasonable accommodations in housing
Both the South Carolina Fair Housing Act and the federal Fair Housing Act, prohibit discrimination against people with mental and physical disabilities who need reasonable accommodations in housing. This includes the use of Assistance Animals (Service Animals and Emotional Support Animals). Discrimination includes “a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when such accommodations may be necessary to afford [the] person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” SC Code § 31-21-70 (G)(2); 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B); 24 C.F.R. § 100.204.
Service Animals vs. Emotional Support Animals: what’s protected
In the past, HUD guidance explained how to decide if a tenant had a disability, or someone in their household has a disability, what questions a housing provider could ask, and what documentation could be requested. However, on May 22, 2026, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development withdrew its former HUD guidance on Emotional Support Animals (ESAs). HUD issued new internal guidance for administrative enforcement and prioritization of complaints concerning Assistance Animals. The agency decided it would no longer process complaints challenging the use of “untrained” ESAs (which are said to comprise more than 20% of Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) complaints). Now HUD says that, while accommodations for Service Animals are “presumptively reasonable,” requests to waive pet policies for “untrained ESAs” are not:
When a complaint involves waivers of a pet policy, FHEO will now find there is reasonable cause for the complaint only where the animal has been individually trained to perform work or perform tasks directly related to the complainant’s disability.
While requests to waive pet policies for animals trained to perform specific disability-related services are presumptively reasonable, requests to waive pet policies for untrained ESAs are not. FHEO no longer expects housing providers to categorically extend accommodations for trained assistance animals to untrained ESAs
In other words, under the new HUD memorandum, a request for an Emotional Support Animal is no longer “presumed” to be reasonable. By requiring ESAs to be “trained” like Service Animals are, HUD essentially no longer treats ESAs as separate from Service Animals (which are required to be individually trained to provide disability-related assistance). The memorandum does acknowledge that ESAs may be any kind of domestic animal and are not limited to dogs (or miniature horses) as are Service Animals.
Federal statutory and regulatory law, however, have not changed. Housing providers must still comply with the anti-discrimination laws and fairly process requests for reasonable accommodations, including ESAs.
South Carolina Offers Extra Protections for ESAs
South Carolina law expressly protects use of Emotional Support Animals and is not affected by HUD’s retreat in protecting ESAs. The South Carolina Fair Housing Act (SC Code §§ 31-21-10 et seq.) recognizes the right to use (untrained) ESAs and sets limits on information housing providers may ask for when considering requests for ESAs as reasonable accommodations:
(N)(1) A landlord may ask a tenant or prospective tenant the following questions to determine whether an animal that is not a service animal should be deemed a reasonable accommodation:
(a) “Does the person seeking to use and live with the animal have a disability that is a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities?”
(b) “Does the person seeking to use and live with the animal have a disability-related need for the animal?”
(2) Landlords may request documentation to verify the tenant’s responses to the above questions. Such documentation shall be deemed sufficient if it establishes that an individual has a disability and that the animal in question will provide some type of disability-related assistance or emotional support.
See SC Code § 31-21-70 (N)(1) and (2) (no training requirement for ESAs).
The South Carolina Human Affairs Commission (SCHAC) confirms South Carolina Protections for the use of ESAs are not affected by HUD’s change in federal administrative enforcement
On August 13, 2026, the South Carolina Human Affairs Commission (SCHAC) confirmed that HUD’s narrower federal administrative enforcement policy does not change the rights of people with disabilities under our state law. See SCHAC Press Release.
People who believe a housing provider has unlawfully denied a reasonable accommodation, or has imposed charges, for an ESA may still:
- file a complaint directly with SCHAC under the South Carolina Fair Housing Law; or
- file a private lawsuit in South Carolina circuit court.
SCHAC’s evaluation under state law does not depend on whether the ESA has received specialized training. SCHAC explains:
HUD’s memo is limited to how the federal agency handles its own administrative complaints. It does not change the text of the Fair Housing Act, does not affect complaints involving housing covered by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and does not eliminate anyone’s right to bring a private lawsuit in state or federal court. “HUD has changed how it enforces federal law, not what South Carolina law requires,” said Dr. Alisa Warren, Commissioner. “South Carolinians who are denied a reasonable accommodation for an emotional support animal continue to have a place to turn. SCHAC will keep applying our state’s disability accommodation standard exactly as we have, and we encourage anyone who believes they have experienced housing discrimination to contact us.”